Throughout most of my life as a fan of playing cards, I have been far more fond of games that utilize a team approach, like spades or euchre or contract bridge, rather than those that offer an individual approach (unless they are complicated games of the canasta and hand and foot variety). As a result, I have come to see that card playing with a partner requires a vastly different sort of experience than playing by yourself, as one would in blackjack or poker. It also helps that I’m not the sort of person who really enjoys gambling either, so I am drawn to more social or cerebral games as opposed to those whose thrill is in the risk and daring and bluffing.

Nonetheless, these elements are not entirely lacking. Teams that are behind in a game like Spades tend to become fare more risky in their behavior as they fall increasingly behind. To some extent, being risk adverse or indulging in risk is greatly related to one’s position. A weaker position requires greater risk (with much greater chances of failure) in order to achieve any possibility of success, as a conservative strategy in a weak position often guarantees failure. Among the most risky moves someone can make (with a correspondingly greater reward for the unlikely success) is a nil, which means that person makes a contract not to win any tricks at all in a hand, requiring his partner to “cover” him as the other team attempts to win their own tricks and sabotage the attempt. Even more daring is the blind nil, which is a bid of nil before one has even looked at a hand, an extremely risky strategy often utilized at the very edge of defeat.

The usual reply from one player to another in such a grim circumstance is “good luck pard” (a slangy form of saying “good luck partner”), which may sometimes even be shortened to glp. It is worthwhile and instructive, in light of the metaphorical significance of card playing, to ponder at least some of the meanings of that saying. In doing so we might understand our own use of similar sayings in real life and understand the significance of such matters on the team aspect of what is meant when one says “good luck pard.”

One at least one level, the saying is a sign of at least grudging respect for a partner who is willing to take a difficult and unpleasant task for the benefit of the team, along with the willingness to help out in whatever way is possible. At least, that is how I tend to use the expression, with a sort of grim seriousness and a wish for some good fortune to help in the attempt, if it happens. With this sort of meaning attached to the phrase it is a sign of grim solidarity and determination to do the best that one can in the face of a hostile and unpleasant situation, as well as an attempt to make some sort of sardonic joke about it.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible to use the phrase as an attempt to provide some sort of content-free good wishes (without any desire or attempt to help out) distancing yourself from the interests and efforts of one’s ostensible partner. Sadly, I have seen this sort of thing as well. If things are going poorly, those who lack loyalty may often withdrawal their genuine fellow feelings from someone else and harden their heart, becoming cold and hostile where there ought to be warmth and solidarity. This is done to protect one’s self from the feelings of disappointing, but the result is to act in a treacherous and disloyal way toward those whom we should be supporting and helping. In such circumstances it can be interpreted as the Apostle James referred to those who say “Be warm and filled” without doing anything to meet practical needs that are within our power to meet.

The difference between these possible meanings is broad and extreme. In the first case we have a grim sense of humor along with a determination to do what we can for the benefit of our partnership or team. In the second case we have hollow and empty words devoid of any interest in actually providing any sort of help to a partner in need of assistance. Where do we fall on the spectrum between these options. How seriously do we consider our duties and loyalty to others? How understanding are we of their situation, and how interested are we in preserving ties even through difficult times? I consider myself a loyal person by nature who is willing to fight pretty hard for relationships, but I have found that such loyalty is rare in my circle of friends and acquaintances and family members.

Such problems do not exist in the words that we use, but rather in what is meant by them. How can one convey the difference between a grim determination to do the best one can for a given team or group and an attempt to cut the ties and increase emotional distance without wanting to seem rude or treacherous about it. We have serious difficulties in imputing motives to others; nonetheless, we can judge people by their fruits, and recognize the pattern of whether their actions tend in one direction or the other. Words are not sufficient, but it is the connection between words and actions that allows us to determine the real meaning meant.

We ought therefore to examine ourselves to see whether we are sending the messages we intend throughout the combination of our words and actions. Are we sending a message that we are willing to fight for a relationship even through tough times, or are we sending the message that when times get tough we cut and run because we lack loyalty to others? Clearly, the problems of broken relationships and broken families suggests that a great many of us have a far lower level of loyalty toward our family, friends, business partners, brethren, and other people with whom we should feel a sense of fellow feeling than ought to be the case. What we do about it remains to be seen.